Summary by Adelle Forth
Highlights
- Gaslighting is a type of emotional abuse that is used to manipulate and control a victim/survivor. As compared to other forms of intimate partner violence it is relatively understudied.
- This online study explored the how strongly the Dark Tetrad traits were related to acceptance of gaslighting tactics in a community sample of 315 Australian men and women.
- Primary psychopathy, Machiavellian tactics, and sadism were most strongly associated with acceptance of gaslighting tactics. Men were more likely to consider gaslighting as acceptable compared to women.
- Given the lack of research on gaslighting, more research is needed to understand the use and impact of these tactics within intimate partners.
Background:
Gaslighting is a tactic to make the victim/survivor feel they are “crazy” and is used to control and manipulate others. Victims/survivors often report they feel destabilized and begin to doubt the reality of what is happening to them (Sweet, 2019). Dark Tetrad personality traits include psychopathy (lack of remorse and empathy, impulsivity), narcissism (grandiosity and admiration seeking), Machiavellianism (cynicism and manipulation), and sadism (enjoyment from the suffering of others). Research has found that the Dark Tetrad traits are all related to intimate partner violence with psychopathy being the dimension that most strongly associated with such violence (Plouffe et al., 2020). Prior studies suggest that a measure designed to assess primary psychopathy (by focusing on the interpersonal and emotional features of psychopathy) is more strongly associated with physical and psychological abuse as compared to a measure designed to assess secondary psychopathy (and focusing on the impulsive lifestyle and antisocial features; Iyican & Babcock, 2018). When examining the facets of narcissism, grandiose narcissism (feelings of superiority) is related to psychological abuse, vulnerable narcissism (fragile self-esteem) is also related to psychological abuse via romantic jealousy (Ponti et al., 2020). Studies of Machiavellianism that distinguish Machiavellian views (cynical view of others) and Machiavellian tactics (engaging in interpersonal exploitation) have not been examined by past researchers with respect to intimate partner abuse.
Why was the study done?
Past research has found that individuals with Dark Tetrad traits are more likely to engage in gaslighting tactics (Miano et al., 2021). This study examined the associations between Dark Tetrad traits and the acceptance of the use of gaslighting tactics in intimate relationships (not whether they engaged in gaslighting within their own romantic relationships). In addition, the different facets of psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellians were also investigated. Researchers predicted that all the Dark Tetrad traits would be related to the acceptance of gaslighting tactics. They also examined whether there are differences between women and men in the acceptance of gaslighting tactics.
How was the study done?
The study was done online with 315 Australian adults (62% women, mean age of 42 years) completing self-report measures of the Dark Tetrad traits, social desirability, and acceptance of gaslighting tactics. Participants were asked to indicate how acceptable 10 different gaslighting tactics were (1 = unacceptable and 7 = acceptable). Below are some examples of the gaslighting tactics:
- Person A accuses Person B of lying, even when Person A know that they (Person A) are the one who is lying.
- Person A never admits to doing anything wrong, even when Person B has proof that Person A has done something wrong.
What did the researchers find?
As predicted all the Dark Tetrad traits were related to acceptance of gaslighting tactics as was social desirability. Participants reporting higher social desirability reported less acceptance of gaslighting tactics. Gaslighting acceptance was most strongly related to high primary psychopathy, high Machiavellian tactics, and high sadism. Men scored higher than women on social desirability, primary psychopathy, and acceptance of gaslighting tactics.
What are the implications?
The findings provide evidence for the role of Dark Tetrad traits in the acceptance of gaslighting tactics. This study examined whether people were accepting of the use of gaslighting tactics and not whether they engaged in these tactics, and thus future research should examine the Dark Tetrad traits and the tendency to engage in gaslighting tactics. The study also showed that both men and women engage in intimate partner violence; future researchers should focus on the different tactics used across genders and on the impact of these tactics.
This study:
March, E., Kay, C.S., Dinić, B. M., Wagstaff, D., Grabovac, B., & Jonason, P. (2023). “It’s all in your head”: Personality traits and gaslighting tactics in intimate relationships. Journal of Family Violence.
To access the study: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10896-023-00582-y
Other research cited:
Iyican, S., & Babcock, J. C. (2018). The relation between the two factors of psychopathy and intimate partner aggression. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, & Trauma, 27, 119–130.
Miano, P., Bellomare, M., & Genova, V. G. (2021). Personality correlates of gaslighting behaviours in young adults. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 27(3), 285–298.
Plouffe, R. A., Wilson, C. A., & Saklofske, D. H. (2022). Examining the relationships between childhood exposure to intimate partner violence, the Dark Tetrad of personality, and violence perpetration in adulthood. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37, 5–6.
Ponti, L., Ghinassi, S., & Tani, F. (2020). The role of vulnerable and grandiose narcissism in psychological perpetrated abuse within couple relationships: The mediating role of romantic jealousy. The Journal of Psychology, 154, 144–158.
Sweet, P. L. (2019). The sociology of gaslighting. American Sociological Review, 84(5), 851–875.
————
Note. The current study used the Levenson Self-Report Scale to assess psychopathic traits. Research suggests that Levenson and his colleagues were not correct in suggesting that primary psychopathy is characterized primarily by the interpersonal and affective features of psychopathy (often referred to as Factor 1) or that secondary psychopathy is characterized primarily by the lifestyle and antisocial features (often referred to as Factor 2). On the contrary, when studies do identify subtypes of offenders who appear to fit into these subtypes, those offenders with primary psychopathy have both the Factor 1 and Factor 2 traits of psychopathy. Similarly, those with secondary psychopathy have both the Factor 1 and Factor 2 features. Some studies do suggest that individuals with primary psychopathy may be even higher in the Factor 1 traits than individuals with secondary psychopathy (e.g., Hicks & Drislane, 2016; Vassileva et al., 2005), whereas others do not (e.g., Dargis & Koenigs, 2018; Hicks et al., 2010). Readers interested in learning more about research with the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy scale are encouraged to consider recent papers by Christian and colleagues and by Garofalo and colleagues.
Other research cited in note:
Christian, E., & Sellbom, M. (2016). Development and validation of an expanded version of the three-factor Levenson self-report psychopathy scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98(2), 155–168. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2015.1068176
Dargis, M., & Koenigs, M. (2018). Two subtypes of psychopathic criminals differ in negative affect and history of childhood abuse. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 10(4), 444–451. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000328
Garofalo, C., Noteborn, M. G. C., Sellbom, M., & Bogaerts, S. (2019). Factor structure and construct validity of the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy scale (LSRP): A replication and extension in Dutch nonclinical participants. Journal of Personality Assessment, 101(5), 481–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1519830
Hicks, B. M.& Drislane, L. E. (2018). Variants (“subtypes”) of psychopathy. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (2nd ed., pp. 311–337). The Guilford Press.
Hicks, B. M., Vaidyanathan, U., & Patrick, C. J. (2010). Validating female psychopathy subtypes: Differences in personality, antisocial and violent behavior, substance abuse, trauma, and mental health. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 1(1), 38–57. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018135
Levenson, M. R., Kiehl, K. A., & Fitzpatrick, C. M. (1995). Assessing psychopathic attributes in a noninstitutionalized population. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(1), 151–158. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.1.151
Vassileva, J., Kosson, D. S., Abramowitz, C., & Conrod, P. (2005). Psychopathy versus psychopathies in classifying criminal offenders. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 10(1), 27–43. https://doi.org/10.1348/135532504X15376
